Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Smalltime gun distributors agree to restrictions than face lawsuits in CA

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Iluvleiberman Donating Member (261 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 01:02 AM
Original message
Smalltime gun distributors agree to restrictions than face lawsuits in CA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 03:09 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well, I'll just wait for the huge drop in crime that is sure to follow
And if it doesn't? Well then it must be because we need even MORE gun control :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoeBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. Change # 1
"Not sell firearms at gun shows;"

What effect will this have? ZERO! There is no difference between a transaction at a gun show than at a dealer's store. NONE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. There aren't many gun shows in the jurisdictions listed
At least sanity remains intact in San Diego County.

BTW one more post and you're out of the 700 Club. Congratulations!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. Can somebody explain this one?
"Maintain electronically all firearm trace requests conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and provide that information, upon request, to gun manufacturers and distributors, which would enable them to monitor the conduct of the dealers who sell their firearms."

- Are they suggesting keeping the names on file of the people they had to check?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Is that unreasonable?
It's a way of proving they are complying with the law.

Pharmacies have to maintain a record of every controlled substance transaction they conduct, in considerable detail, usually for at least three years, so that state and federal inspectors can inspect such records to assure compliance.

Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I think it is unreasonable
the government can't keep track of people who attend political protests, but they should be able to keep track of people exercising their 2nd amendment rights?

B
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Gee but to buy that
you have to first believe in the NRA's dishonest revisionist view of "second amendment rights"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Whatever Bench...Dirk, what do you think about my response?
Sorry about Bench's interruption. So, what do you think about my response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Gee, if you want to play "Let's pretend"
feel free.

But don't be surprised when you get called on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. B.S.
you have to first believe in the NRA's dishonest revisionist view of "second amendment rights"...

No, that would be YOUR view where "the people" somehow doesn't mean the people and where you conveniently ignore the fact that the militia is composed of the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-03 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. That would be
my view, the courts' view, the Founding Fathers' view and the sane view.

Now go cry about it to somebody who is dumb enough to buy NRA propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-03 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Wrong!
Edited on Sat Aug-23-03 06:41 PM by BullDozer
You've now expanded your totally eronious claim further than even before. Why don't you spend a few days and gather up your very best proof of your bullshit claim so I can spend 2 minutes once again proving you to be totally wrong.

I guess your public spanking in your beloved general discsussion forum on this very subject didn't hurt badly enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-24-03 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
66. Prove it dozer
So far I've shown what a pantload the RKBA claims are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #66
71. deal
Gee that's not a regular JPS RKBA poster whacking you with the truth about US v Miller now is it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... (post 66 & 95)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #71
74. No, but it's still bullshit
no matter who slings it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. Awwwwwwwwww
Does it hurt?

You have yet to prove your version of reality is anything close to the truth, now get back up to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... and get your proof out. If you have any that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. Been there, done that
Most recently right here. Now go snivel about it to somebody who gives a crap. Try the right wing loonies over at highroadrage.com.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. What a crock
Been there, done that Most recently right here

You must be using invisible text because there sure isn't any proof in this thread either.

I'll make it easy for you which post number is it in?

You can type two numbers can't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
46. Open mouth insert foot
Edited on Tue Aug-26-03 03:16 PM by Spoonman
I would assume that 99.999% of every person in the USA would agree that the men that wrote the following know more about the constitution than you will ever know.

There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words "the people" have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words "the people" have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And, as used throughout the Constitution, "the people" have "rights" and "powers," but federal and state governments only have "powers" or "authority", never "rights."
Moreover, the Constitution's text likewise recognizes not only the difference between the "militia" and "the people" but also between the "militia" which has not been "call forth" and "the militia, when in actual service."

Our view of the meaning of "the people," as used in the Constitution, is in harmony with the United States Supreme Court's pronouncement in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060-61 (1990), that:

"'he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the People of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.'
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of people who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

Several other Supreme Court opinions speak of the Second Amendment in a manner plainly indicating that the right which it secures to "the people" is an individual or personal, not a collective or quasi-collective, right in the same sense that the rights secured to "the people" in the First and Fourth Amendments, and the rights secured by the other provisions of the first eight amendments, are individual or personal, and not collective or quasi-collective, rights. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2805 (1992); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1937 (1977) ;(26) Robertson v. Baldwin, supra (see quotation in note 17 supra); Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 450-51, 15 L.Ed. 691, 705, 719 (1856). See also Justice Black's concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1456 (1968).

It appears clear that "the people," as used in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, refers to individual Americans.

GARWOOD, DeMOSS and PARKER, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JUDGES
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #46
65. Peddle it to someone dumb enough to buy it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
24. Sorry for the delay in responding
The primary purpose of maintaining such records would be to monitor compliance by the gun dealers, not keep tabs on citizens. Governments have a compelling interest in seeing that gun dealers comply with existing law, and there are surely some who don't 100% of the time. I understand your objection to having such a record exist, but I think the parallel with pharmacies is very appropriate. And also note that it's the gun dealers themselves who maintain the records individually, not any government agency. The data is not there in any central database any time some bureaucrat wants to nose around in it. If such a system were put in place, I would have no problem providing the same kind of confidentiality protections that medical records currently enjoy. Pharmacy records are closely guarded from all except law enforcement.

Pharmacies maintain very private and detailed information about people on an ongoing basis--information that is vastly more sensitive than whether you own a gun or not--and law enforcement (LE) agencies have the right to see that information in the course of their legitimate duties, but *only* in the course of those duties. If LE had an investigation of a crime involving a person and their ownership of a gun, I don't see a problem with LE having access to such records. Also, such records would be expunged after a period--three years, two years, something similar to pharmacies; that varies from state to state, with a federal minimum (I forget now how long that is, it's DEA regulations).

I think this is a reasonable accommodation that potentially would assist LE and discourage *some* illegal activity by gun dealers. I believe that lots of activities that are generally considered "rights" are subject to such limited forms of record-keeping--marriage, for example.

Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Oops--I misread the original post (#3)
Supply these records to "maufacturers and distributors"? Uh, I agree--why would you want to do that? So these records are *already* available for *gov't* inspection? Duh...sorry. My ignorance is showing.

I might advocate requiring the gun dealers to keep these records electronically instead of in a "bound book". I wonder if the relevant BATF laws and regs have kept up with cyber reality...? I know the DEA was very slow to address things like e-mail and computers in pharmacies, so it wouldn't surprise me.

Dirk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
41. ATF allows electronic recordkeeping...
only with much additional red tape. Their reasoning is that it's much easier to tamper with electronic records than with a bound book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
81. late to the party ... but
It seems to me that this:

Maintain electronically all firearm trace requests conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and provide that information, upon request, to gun manufacturers and distributors, which would enable them to monitor the conduct of the dealers who sell their firearms.


means that the information about what dealer sold the firearm would be provided to the manufacturer and distributor of the firearm in question. I assume that manufacturers and distributors sell to dealers, not individuals, normally. Manufacturers and distributors would therefore not be interested in, and would have no legitimate interest in knowing, which individual was found in, or at one time had, possession of a particular firearm. How would knowing the individual's name enable a manufacturer or distributor to "monitor the conduct of the dealers who sell their firearms"? All the manufacturer or distributor needs to know is the circumstances in which the firearm became problematic to the point that the Bureau needed to trace it.

The Bureau of whatsits would obviously have to maintain records of firearm trace requests (i.e. responses to requests, I assume) so that it had the dealer information available for this purpose.

That's certainly my interpretation. My tendency is to assume that a public authority is acting for a legitimate purpose unless I have some reason to think that it isn't. I don't see any reason here to infer that the information would be either retained or disclosed for improper purposes.

"I think it is unreasonable
the government can't keep track of people who attend political protests, but they should be able to keep track of people exercising their 2nd amendment rights?"


Okay, maybe I'm being naive ... again. But you originally asked:

"Are they suggesting keeping the names on file of the people they had to check?"

Um ... why would they have "had to check" people? Perhaps, not because those people had "exercised their 2nd amendment rights", but rather because they'd exercised them in some sort of (allegedly?) non-rightful acts?

Does a "trace request" necessarily involve individuals at all? I thought you guys didn't have firearms registration -- so if the Bureau of whatsit finds itself in possession of a problematic firearm, can it even identify the person who purchased it in all cases? Is the trace not in fact going to show the dealer who sold it, but not necessarily the person who bought it? I dunno ... if dealers do have to keep track of that, haven't you already got the beginnings of firearms registration? Would the trace lead to an individual, who could then be queried as to how the firearm got into the problematic hands it ended up in? Seriously; I don't quite understand the issue here.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. Yup...
the only difference is that in the case you point to, that's the GOVERNMENT doing it. The gun companies already have to do that for the government, except that it's for 20 years instead of 3. Now they'll have to open their records to companies. I wonder what THAT will result in, besides a decrease in privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Records Compliance
Dealers already have to keep the 4473 form that is filled out on every sale for 20 years after the date of the sale or disposition. In addition they are required to maintain a "bound book" that has the receipt and disposition of every firearm the buy and sell in it.

Upon discontinuance of their business the dealer has to forward the 4473s (they will go back at least 20 years if the dealer has been in business that long) and their bound book(s)(acquisition/disposition records)to the BATF(E).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
10. It's blackmail...
and nothing else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Boo hoo hoo
How tragic that the corrupt gun industry should be held to the standards of other industries...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Blackmail is wrong...
regardless of who is doing it.

Think it will be 6 more months until this kind of lawsuit is prohibited?

Your side of this issue is giving the Repukes ammunition to use for their push for tort reform. In case you didn't know it, that's a BAD thing for Democrats, and the American people. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Yeah, surrrrrrrre....
"Think it will be 6 more months until this kind of lawsuit is prohibited?"
Hell, I know the GOP is trying to push through that disgraceful immunity bill for the corrupt gun industry. But then they ARE the scum of the earth...

"Your side of this issue is giving the Repukes ammunition to use for their push for tort reform."
Gee, can't wait until the next time Faux Noise Nutwork starts wailing about unnecessary lawsuits.....

"I hope you're proud of yourself.
"
I am...I'm not pimping to let a corrupt bunch of thugs sell guns to criminals...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-22-03 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Ah, yes...
You've got SO much to be proud of. because of people like you, the Democratic Party is seen as being "Anti-gun". Of course, that's made hundreds of thousands of people who normally vote Democratic either vote against us or not vote at all. Would you say that we've won or lost power since Brady in 1994? Think carefully...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-03 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Yeah I do....
" Of course, that's made hundreds of thousands of people who normally vote Democratic either vote against us "
Not even close to true....but it's nicce to see RKBA fantasy is thriving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-23-03 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Some simple facts:
In 1994, we controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. Now we don't control any of them. What's YOUR theory of why that happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-24-03 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Gee
A big part of that was the corrupt gun lobby spendinng millions on the corrupt Republican party.

In 1992, gun crime was at an all time high....since then, thanks to the Democrats and the Brady Law it's fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s.

I don't know why RKBA "enthusiasts" don't just join the Republican party, since they admire its corruption and hate so much...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. George Santayana is rolling over in his grave
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

A big part of that was the corrupt gun lobby spendinng millions on the corrupt Republican party.

:tinfoilhat:

I'd like to brush this off and tell Benchley to believe it at his or her own risk, but we're talking about an attitude that puts the Democratic Party's future prospects of ever regaining power in this country at risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. What a frigging pantload
Sounds like your tinfoil hat is working perfectly...shutting out any actual facts and letting the foolishness in...

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q13

Between 1990 and 2002 the corrupt gun industry gaved the Repubs nearly $15 million bucks. The NRA boasted that they'd have an office right in the White House.

"an attitude that puts the Democratic Party's future prospects of ever regaining power in this country at risk."
Sort of like the stand against the Viet Nam war, or the stand for civil rights, or the stand against Chimpy's illegal invasion of Iraq....

It's a mystery to me why some of these nuts don't actually join the Republicans...they sure seem to hate every Democrat they've ever heard of....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. $15 million over 12 years is chicken feed
Edited on Tue Aug-26-03 10:51 AM by slackmaster
Political-action committees

Contributions to Political Action Committees (PAC) increased dramatically in the last election cycle. According to figures compiled by the Federal Election Commission, Political Action Committees raised $604.9 million during the 1999-2000 election cycle. PAC contributions to federal candidates for the 1999-2000 cycle totaled $259.8 million (FEC May 31, 2001.)


http://www.donationdepot.com/government/index.asp#E

Here's a nifty search tool to see who got how much money from whom:

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/fecimg/srssea.html

BTW money isn't everything. During the 1999 - 2000 election cycle Al Gore accepted $132,804,039 (net) all from individual contributors and still managed to end up not serving as President.

And here's a really fine source for campaign contribution data:

http://www.opensecrets.org /

Looks like "Gun Rights" groups gave about 85% of their contributions to Republicans. If they're so determined to take over the Republican party then why did they make any contributions ($2,579,187) to Democrats at all?

The NRA ranks 23 overall, trailing way behind trial lawyers, the tobacco industry, teachers, and big labor unions to mane a few. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre.....
Peddle it to someone dumb enough to believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Do you have ANYTHING constructive to say, Benchley?
I've provided links with hard numbers. I'd welcome some well-reasoned discussion, but you don't seem to be willing to participate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Been there, done that
If you want to pretend the corrupt gun industry DOESN'T support the Republican party, you can play "let's pretend" with somebody else.

"I've provided links with hard numbers."
That have nothing to do with the question at hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. When did I say the gun industry didn't support Republicans?
Edited on Tue Aug-26-03 11:48 AM by slackmaster
That has to be the most feeble strawman argument you have presented yet this week. Keep it up, I know you can do better.

"I've provided links with hard numbers."
That have nothing to do with the question at hand.


They have EVERYTHING to do with the issue you raised.

Contributions by pro-RKBA groups are dwarfed by those of largely pro-Democratic groups like trial lawyers, teachers, retired people, and blue-collar workers. That is a fact that you seem to be intent on ignoring. Democrats are losing power and it's not for lack of money; the problem is lack of VOTES.

Shame on you for broadcasting propaganda from an organization that makes no secret of its goal to ban handgun ownership for ordinary citizens: http://www.banhandgunsnow.org /. That message is guaranteed to result in one anti-Democratic vote for every pair of handgun owners' ears it falls on. Have you ever tried to figure out WHY the gun lobby would contribute almost $3 million to Democratic candidates? Has it occurred to you that the gun lobby might actually be what it appears to be, i.e. a single-issue constituency, rather than part of the VRWC?

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. FLARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Shame on you for broadcasting propaganda from an organization that makes no secret of its goal to ban handgun ownership for ordinary citizens: http://www.banhandgunsnow.org /. That message is guaranteed to result in one anti-Democratic vote for every pair of handgun owners' ears it falls on. Have you ever tried to figure out WHY the gun lobby would contribute almost $3 million to Democratic candidates? Has it occurred to you that the gun lobby might actually be what it appears to be, i.e. a single-issue constituency, rather than part of the VRWC?"

Excellent!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Nope, just another damp damp squib
But thanks for playing "what's my RKBA fantasy"....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. "squib"?
That's a pretty esoteric "gun nut" term. You SURE you're not running a false flag operation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #42
60. It's a common enough word for a little poot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoNotRefill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #60
70. A "damp, damp little poot"...
what the hell is that supposed to mean? Some kind of reference to a midget waterskiing team?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Gee, slack, you said it in post 26...
"A big part of that was the corrupt gun lobby spendinng millions on the corrupt Republican party.
I'd like to brush this off and tell Benchley to believe it at his or her own risk"
And you added that little tinfoil hat cartoon....

"Contributions by pro-RKBA groups are dwarfed by those of largely pro-Democratic groups like trial lawyers, teachers, retired people, and blue-collar workers."
And what the hell does that have to do with the issue at hand?

"Shame on you for broadcasting propaganda from an organization that makes no secret of its goal to ban handgun ownership for ordinary citizens: http://www.banhandgunsnow.org /. "
Hey, slack...that's YOUR site, not mine. My site, which I clearly referenced in #27, was

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q13

And for the record, I don't see a damn thing wrong with that proposal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. You quote and praise the Violence Policy Center daily here
Edited on Tue Aug-26-03 12:11 PM by slackmaster
"And for the record, I don't see a damn thing wrong with that proposal (to ban handguns)" (parenthetic expression added by slackmaster).

The blood of the Democratic Party's chance to regain power will be on your hands, Benchley. If you reject gun owners completely you write off up to 80 million potential voters.

Don't say we didn't warn you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. In other words, it was a load of RKBA hooey
"The blood of the Democratic Party's chance to regain power will be on your hands, Benchley."
What a pantload. In fact, more voters favor gun control than not, and have for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. It makes a lot more sense than your gun-grabbing monkey hooey
A majority do NOT favor banning handguns and never have. In California there was once a ballot initiative to do just that. It lost by about 75% - 25%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Gee, slack
A majority favor registration of owners and guns. A majority favor restrictions on ammo sales. A majority favor background checks. A majority favor a waiting period. A majority favor the assault weapons ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Got facts?
Let's see the cites, but I'll bet for every survey you can produce someone can produce another one that says something different.

I'm glad you finally unmasked yourself as a gun-ban advocate. That revelation makes it easier to understand your emotional hype and rhetoric. Unfortunately your radical fringe ideas do not play well in most of the USA, and to have them associated with Democrats does us all a disservice. I would hate like hell for this country to decline into single-party rule.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. I sure do...
And you know it as well, with all the sniveling you've done about the Joyce Foundation.

"I'm glad you finally unmasked yourself as a gun-ban advocate."
Gee, slack, I've said all along there's no reason for assault weapons to be on the street.

"Unfortunately your radical fringe ideas do not play well in most of the USA"
Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Pinch another loaf of gun-grabbing monkey shit!
And you know it as well, with all the sniveling you've done about the Joyce Foundation.

You are tragically mistaken. Until this post I have never mentioned the Joyce Foundation on DU forums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. That was me Slack
The Joyce Foundation is the group that sponsors fake studies in an attempt to ban firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Thanks
So Benchley is so blinded by hatred that he or she can't tell the difference between you and me.

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. Ahhhhh
Our evil plan is working.............. :freak:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. Or more likely doesn't care
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #50
61. You're right...I mixed you up with Frack
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. Too too too funny
"Has it occurred to you that the gun lobby might actually be what it appears to be, i.e. a single-issue constituency, rather than part of the VRWC?"
Who the hell are you trying to kid? Remember we're talking about the Tim McVeigh/Ted Nugent crowd.

ARE you seriously trying to tell us that crap like this is NOT just the same dreary puddle of right wing pus:

"Senators Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Diane Finestein are among the most eager to ban guns, and they are among the most socialist of our national politicians.
In the House, a dedicated opponent of firearms ownership and self-defense is Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, an avowed socialist. This can be said because she is a member of the House Progressive Caucus, which is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, which is affiliated with Socialist International.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry1.htm

""People can't expect President Clinton to sit there in front of a camera and say, 'Tonight I have declared martial law,'" Pratt said. "You'll just find out about it when you try and get on the main highway and there's a humvee with a soldier who says, 'Turn back.' And when you ask why, he puts his gun into ready position and says, 'I'm only following orders. Please turn back.' "

http://www.newdaynews.com/thenews/index.cgi/noframes/re...

http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws0109.htm

"Speaking to an NRA "Get Out the Vote for Bush Rally" in Grand Rapids Michigan, Heston, in October of 2000, said something that should have resulted in a visit from the Secret Service: "Now, saying 'I'm with you guys on guns.' In any other time or place you'd be looking for a lynching mob." The crowd responded with "let's do it" and "I've got a rope," according to a Grand Rapids newspaper."

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/04/11.html

"I say, if anyones going to lose freedoms, make it the illegal aliens."

http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/cpac0202.asp

Charlton Heston: "Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, oreven worseEvangelical Christian, Midwest, or Southern, oreven worserural, apparently straight, oreven worseadmittedly heterosexual, gun-owning oreven worseNRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, oreven worsemale working stiff, because not only don't you count, you're a downright obstacle to social progress. ...I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton's cultural shock troops participate in homosexual-rights fund-raisers but boycott gun-rights fund-raisers... and then claim it's time to place homosexual men in tents with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian relationships are somehow better served and more loved."

http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/speech.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. Benchley, YOU are the only one here citing the NRA, Pratt, et al
I've managed to make my points without stooping to guilt by association. Without that and your frequent subject changes, goalpost moves, appeals to emotion, etc. you have nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. FLARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edited on Tue Aug-26-03 02:37 PM by Spoonman
And yet another "fact flare" for Slackmaster.

RKBA-2 Gun-O-Phob-0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. Nope, just another damp squib, spoon...
Remember? You were on here just yesterday sniveling about "RKBA Activist Sues the City of Muskegon"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. No sniveling
just having fun with gun-o-phobes and bigots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. Yeah, surrrrrre......
Tell us again....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. No sniveling
just having fun with gun-o-phobes and bigots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. Really? Who was that RKBA Activist you were pimping for?
Please tell us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. Pimping for the
Let's show them how asinine they can be activist.
Thanks for donating.

See YA!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. The hell I am...
Who was that trying to pretend Roy Moore and the Brady Foundation were linked?

Who was that posting "RKBA Activist Sues the City of Muskegon"

Who is it trying to peddle "More guns., less crime" rubbish?

You want to pretend the RKBA crowd aren't 99% right wing imbeciles, fine with me. But it's hooey and you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Hand us another gut-busting guffaw
Who was that trying to pretend Roy Moore and the Brady Foundation were linked?

Who was that posting "RKBA Activist Sues the City of Muskegon"

Who is it trying to peddle "More guns., less crime" rubbish?

You want to pretend the RKBA crowd aren't 99% right wing imbeciles, fine with me. But it's hooey and you know it.


None of the above were posted or supported or even responded to by me. You're the one obsessing over them.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Are you trying to say those aren't RKBA threads, slack?
Too too funny...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. RKBA threads
"RKBA Activist Sues the City of Muskegon"

Drop trousers, un-twist panties.

Someday you'll realize when your being played, until then, everyone else will enjoy the aftermath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #58
64. Wow...
"Someday you'll realize when your being played"
Gee, someday you'll realize what a lame response that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. What?
Can't face facts, I wish you all the luck next time, then again you will probably get baited in and played again even if holding a four leaf clover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #55
68. I haven't read them
None of those thread titles interested me enough to spend any time on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-26-03 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #31
72. Both parties
Get money from the NRA. The vast majority goes to Republicans as more Rs vote with the NRA than do Democrats.

Stop pretending that Democrats are not also supported by the NRA, because they damn sure are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. What a pantload
Enron gave a piddly amount to Democrats too......which didn't mean dick either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #73
77. What a pile of gun-grabber gobbledygook
If the gun lobby was really intent on supporting just one party it wouldn't give a red cent to any other party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-27-03 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #73
79. Not enough?
Edited on Wed Aug-27-03 07:53 PM by BullDozer
I guess that spending just over 21% of their PAC expenditures on Democrats from 1989 through 1998 is a piddly amount.

21% is not piddly it's a considerable percentage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. Dozer, peddle it to somenody dumb enough to buy it

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q13

Between 1990 and 2002 the corrupt gun industry gaved the Repubs nearly $15 million bucks. The NRA boasted that they'd have an office right in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. Yet you keep pretending it supports only one party
If the gun industry wanted to support only one party then WHY DID IT GIVE ANY MONEY AT ALL to another party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. Who threatened to lynch Al Gore?
Oh, yeah, that was Charlton Heston, spokesperson for the gun industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. and gun owners were to be boiled in oil
Edited on Thu Aug-28-03 03:15 PM by Romulus
said Sarah Brady, spokesperson for the anti-gun-owner lobby :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Not even close to true
But Heston did call for a lynch mob to string up Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. I take it you cannot answer my question
So by default you agree your entire argument has been shot down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Here's the support for Democrats from the gun industry
"Speaking to an NRA "Get Out the Vote for Bush Rally" in Grand Rapids Michigan, Heston, in October of 2000, said something that should have resulted in a visit from the Secret Service: "Now, saying 'I'm with you guys on guns.' In any other time or place you'd be looking for a lynching mob." The crowd responded with "let's do it" and "I've got a rope," according to a Grand Rapids newspaper."

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/04/11.html

"Consider who are the most ardent gun control advocates in America. Senators Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Diane Finestein are among the most eager to ban guns, and they are among the most socialist of our national politicians.
In the House, a dedicated opponent of firearms ownership and self-defense is Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, an avowed socialist. This can be said because she is a member of the House Progressive Caucus, which is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, which is affiliated with Socialist International. "

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june_2003/gun.htm

Swell lot of playmates you got, slack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. nice try
Edited on Thu Aug-28-03 04:37 PM by Romulus
(edited for spelling and highlighting "the important part")

Regardless of Heston's support of GWB, making things up about what he said only undermines your own credibility.

Speaking to an NRA "Get Out the Vote for Bush Rally" in Grand Rapids Michigan, Heston, in October of 2000, said something that should have resulted in a visit from the Secret Service: "Now, (Al Gore is) saying 'I'm with you guys on guns.' In any other time or place you'd be looking for a lynching mob." The crowd responded with "let's do it" and "I've got a rope," according to a Grand Rapids newspaper.

Heston is obviously commenting on Al Gore's (supposed) duplicity concerning his political stance on firearms ownership, and what would have happened in PAST eras in American history and presently IN OTHER PLACES if a politician was caught lying to a person's face.

Stick to the important parts, please. You know, the "NRA for Bush" part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. His Intent Came Through LOUD and CLEAR
HE was advocating harm against a sitting vice-preseident. The Secret Service should have thrown Chuck's, cold, dead ass in the kilnk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. That's the gun industry speaking: Get a rope!
Amazing what the RKBA crowd here will try and make excuses for, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #87
92. Changing the subject won't help you, Benchley
If the gun industry supports only the Republican party, why did it give 15% of its donations from 1990 - 2002 to Democrats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. Go peddle it to somebody who's dumb enough to buy it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. So In Other Words...............
...........they gave 85% of their donations to Republicans, right???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. did they give money to Democrats or not?
It's a very simple question. One guy here says the NRA "only" supports Republicans. Someone else pointed out that wasn't true. And the first guy then starts talking about non-existent "lynching threats."
:eyes:

Another day in the 'dungeon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. That's exactly right, CO
And MrBenchley continues to pretend that the gun lobby supports Republicans exclusively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. They Overwhelmingly Support Republicans
So if you're a Democrat and you financially support a group such as the NRA, you are actually working against yourself.

The few Democrats supported by the gun lobby are the exception to the rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. that's too similar
to saying that if you're a pro-choice Republican you shouldn't give money to Planned Parenthood.

Interests do not equal party affiliation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. But When An Organization Supports One Party So Strongly....
...it's rather counterproductive to support them if you belong to the opposition party.

And the old saw about "if we go along with them, they'll support our candidates, too." Yeah. When pigs fly...........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. Only if you actually vote party line as a high priority
For me, party affiliation is one of the LAST things I consider in my decision matrix. I care about it only to the extent that the overall makeup of our legislative bodies matters. Party affiliation per say doesn't mean much to me.

I care about many issues, about character, and about qualifications to do the work entailed in holding an elected office. If I was a single-issue voter and cared only about gun issues I'd probably vote Republican about 85% of the time. But I'm not, and I only rarely vote for Republicans because usually the issues that matter most to me direct my vote elsewhere, be it a Democrat, independent, Green, or whatever person seems to best represent my needs for a particular office.

I think of the gun lobby just as any other lobby: A single-issue constituent that has a significant amount of money but only loose control over votes. I value its input but that does not drive my votes. I'd like to see more Democrats showing support for gun owners' rights. Unfortunately we have some extremists like MrBenchley who are bound to get quoted and cited as representative of the mainstream Democratic Party, even though they clearly are not.

YOU in fact, CO Liberal, seem very close to the actual Democratic Party message on gun control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. So Why Do Democratic Pro-Gunners....
....even CONSIDER supporting groups like the NRA that do nothing except spread lies about our party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #101
103. Good question
And far be it from me to say its the same reason they write so admiringly of Orrin Hatch and quote Newsmax and the Washingtom Times...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. If that was addressed to me, you are asking the wrong person
I've never said I support the NRA or "groups like" it, whoever they may be. I do value the NRA's input when it comes to candidates' stances on gun rights and gun control issues. And FWIW their assessments are often inaccurate. I'm surprised they would give Howard Dean an "A" rating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #80
102. So nice of you to prove me to be sooooooooo right
Between 1990 and 2002 the corrupt gun industry gaved the Repubs nearly $15 million bucks.

And from your source they gave Democrats $3 million (your same rounding up method) that's not piddly money.

Notice the position ranking in the top 80 donor industries in any given year; between 55 and 70 (average position is 65).

Note the 94% money to Dems vs 6% to Repubs from Gun Control. (postion 80 in the top 80 donor rankings)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. Gee, dozer, what it proves
is how DIShonest the RKBA crowd is....

"Note the 94% money to Dems vs 6% to Repubs from Gun Control."
Makes one wonder why the RKBA crowd here keeps trying to pretend gun control is a Republican cause, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-28-03 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. Where was that?
Makes one wonder why the RKBA crowd here keeps trying to pretend gun control is a Republican cause, doesn't it?

Arre you disuputing that a major and one of the most prominent gungrabbinggroups is run by Republicans?

If you are referring to the theory that the bradybunch really want to divide the Democratic party in an effort to keep Repubs in power,
it's a shame that the numbers from the source you gave don't do a damn thing to squelch that since guncontrol is dead last in total money given. They can stay on the donor list radar that way and not do any real harm. (Note to self; stay away from general the conspiracy theory threads might start to make sense, Nawwwwwww no way will the whackos who think that ELF really is a governmental plot to discredit the environmentalists up there ever make sense)

And what the numbers do show is that your rabid Pavlovian battle cry of "The NRA is the devil cause momma says so!" is bullsh**.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #106
107. Here you are doing it again
"And what the numbers do show"
Is that the RKBA crowd is full of shit.. AGAIN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #107
108. whirl whirl
Keep a spinning

Yeah OK right.

The numbers speak for themselves and the show you to be wrong as the facts tend to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #108
109. Spin till you're dizzy, dozer
The numbers DO speak for themselves, and they show the RKBA crowd and crooked gun industrry are full of crap and overwhelmingly supporters of the corrupt GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-29-03 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #109
110. Yeah they do speak
The numbers DO speak for themselves, and they show the RKBA crowd and ..... gun industrry ....... overwhelmingly supporters of the .....GOP.

Yet when you are shown (from your own source) that $3 million dollars went to Democrats vs $15 million to Republicans you can't have the common sense to see that they support those you see eye to eye with them on this issue regardless of party affiliation.

How dare anyone do that! :: sarcasm ::


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-03 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #110
111. Cubs beat Cardinals 15-3
According to you, that's a tie.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-03 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #111
112. No....
The support goes to those they want to support, those who agree with them regardless of party affiliation. You try to spin it to where ALL of their support goes to republicans and that's been plainly and clearly shown to not be true. Three million dollars isn't a piddly amount nor is 15% a tiny percentage.


According to you, that's a tie.
From your version the Cardinals plane crashed on take off because the Cubs shot it down with surface to air heating seeking missile.

It's plain to see from the numbers that they support those you see eye to eye with them on this issue regardless of party affiliation.

How dare anyone do that! :: sarcasm ::

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-03 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. Cubs 15-Cardinals 3--and the RKBA crowd says it's a tie
Edited on Sat Aug-30-03 05:02 PM by MrBenchley
And according to you it's a tie.

"It's plain to see from the numbers that they support" Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-30-03 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. Try again
"It's plain to see from the numbers that they support" Republicans.and Democrats who agree with them on this issue.

Why, to use your analogy, are you trying to claim that the Cardinals didn't score their 3 runs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #114
115. Cubs 15-Cardinals 3...RKBA crowd says "tie"
"Why, to use your analogy, are you trying to claim that the Cardinals didn't score their 3 runs?"

Why are you trying to claim the Cubs didn't score 15?

Possibly for the same reason that the RKBA crowd is furiously trying to pretend that gun control is Republican...although the score there is Democrats 94--GOP 6.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BullDozer Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. Try this
It's a real shame for you that Dems took in more money from progun donations ($2,579,187) than they did from the antigun ones ($1,497,245) though isn't it?


Now tell us again how the NRA ONLY supports Republicans?


Possibly for the same reason that the RKBA crowd is furiously trying to pretend that gun control is Republican

Really? According to you the NRA lies and puts that position squarely on the Democratic party, how does that square with your 94-6 score?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 22nd 2017, 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC